It’s great that this question is examined or red teamed!
For onlookers:
It’s unclear whether Wild Animal Welfare advocates in EA believe wild animals have very net negative lives, at least in the broad sense that one might get from Brian Tomasik’s writings.
It’s unnecessary to have a strong belief in net negative welfare for this cause area to rank highly in EA. For example, if a small subset of animals have terrible lives, and we could alleviate this suffering cost effectively, it seems worthy of effort.
BTW, I don’t work in wild animal welfare. I’m just some random dude or something.
Red team: Why might one not believe in the arguments for wild animals having net negative welfare?
It’s great that this question is examined or red teamed!
For onlookers:
It’s unclear whether Wild Animal Welfare advocates in EA believe wild animals have very net negative lives, at least in the broad sense that one might get from Brian Tomasik’s writings.
It’s unnecessary to have a strong belief in net negative welfare for this cause area to rank highly in EA. For example, if a small subset of animals have terrible lives, and we could alleviate this suffering cost effectively, it seems worthy of effort.
BTW, I don’t work in wild animal welfare. I’m just some random dude or something.